Meeting Details

Meeting Summary
Licensing Committee
20 Jan 2025 - 18:30 to 20:30
  • Documents
  • Attendance
  • Visitors
  • Declarations of Interests

Documents

Agenda

Meeting Details
MeetingDetails

Members are invited to a Meeting of the Licensing Committee

to be held in the Deben Conference Room, East Suffolk House, Melton

on Monday, 20 January 2025 at 6.30pm

 

This meeting will be broadcast to the public via the East Suffolk YouTube Channel at https://youtube.com/live/0knGslgnF7Y?feature=share

Open To The Public
1 Apologies for Absence and Substitutions
1
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Patience and Councillor Wilson.
2 Declarations of Interest

Members and Officers are invited to make any declarations of interests, and the nature of that interest, that they may have in relation to items on the Agenda and are also reminded to make any declarations at any stage during the Meeting if it becomes apparent that this may be required when a particular item or issue is considered.

2

Agenda item 4 - Councillor Folley declared she was a member of Felixstowe Sailing Club.

 

Agenda item 4 - Councillor Thompson declared he was a member of Martlesham Parish Council who had submitted a representation. He did not contribute to the representation.

3 pdf Minutes (131Kb)
To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 21 October 2024.
3

On the proposition of Councillor Candy, seconded by Councillor Hedgley it was 
 
RESOLVED

 
That the minutes of the meeting held on 21 October 2024 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Report of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Community Health
4

The Committee received report ES/2238 of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Community Health which related to the Licensing of Personal Watercraft (Jet Skis). The purpose of the report was to consider whether the council should license commercial operators of Personal Watercraft and what conditions, if any, should be imposed if the Council did decide to license Personal Watercraft. 

 

It was noted that individual private owners/users of Personal Watercraft/Jet Skis would be unaffected as they were not within Licensing’s jurisdiction.

 

In introducing the report, Councillor Candy told the Committee that the council was aware that a personal watercraft hire company had started trading and they were operating tours on the River Deben.  The council had received complaints from members of the public and wildlife charities about the use of Jet Skis in the district.  Personal Watercraft that are let out for hire or being used for the carrying of passengers are required to be licensed under the Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1907.  The Licensing Committee would need to determine whether they would license Jet Skis, and if so, with what conditions. Councillor Candy reiterated that the private owners or users of Jet Skis would be unaffected by any decision that the Committee made as they were not within the Licensing jurisdiction.

 

A consultation had taken place and 377 responses were received, which were overwhelmingly not in favour of licensing Jet Skis.  These objections were mainly on the basis of potential damage to the environment, in particular the Deben Estuary.  The support for personal watercraft was noted, in particular from the business affected and also from the Royal Yachting Association, a body authorised by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.

 

The Chair invited questions from the Committee.

 

Councillor Robinson asked for clarification that the issuing of licences would cover the whole of East Suffolk and not just the River Deben.  He felt like it was penalising the whole of the District.  It was confirmed that it would relate to the whole of the East Suffolk District.

 

The Licensing Manager replied that the decision regarding licensing and the extent of that licensing was always a matter for the Committee, however it did relate to the whole of the East Suffolk District. He noted this would be subject to exceptional circumstances as the policy must always allow for a licensing application to be made and considered by the Sub-Committee.  If approved the policy would be that there should be no licensing of any business for the hiring of personal watercraft in the East Suffolk District.

 

The Licensing Manager clarified to the Committee that this would only cover businesses that hire out personal watercraft and it would affect the whole of the East Suffolk District.

 

In response to Councillor Hedgley, the Licensing Manager confirmed that the recommendation they were considering did not relate to individuals using jet skis, adding this would be dealt with by a different team or authority as it was not within the remit of the East Suffolk Council Licensing team.

 

Councillor Folley asked if there had been any consultation on how many businesses apart from the one noted in the report, hired out personal watercraft in the district, particularly as Oulton Broad was within the district too.

 

The Licensing Manager replied they were only aware of one company and Oulton Broad was not within their jurisdiction as it was within the Broads National Park.

 

Councillor Jepson stated that the vast majority of objections appeared to be in from the River Deben and asked if there were other objections received relating to areas outside of the River Deben.

 

The Licensing Manager replied there were some relating to Southwold Beach, but the majority related to the River Deben.  He added the policy as currently drafted would cover the entirety of East Suffolk and it was a matter for the Committee if they wished to agree a policy for considering applications outside of a certain zone.  If that was the case, then the Licensing team would need to consult re technical specifications of the watercraft as that was not something that currently sat within the Licensing team.

 

The Senior Licensing Officer confirmed that the consultation was very general, and not just relating to the Deben Estuary, and the text used related to the whole of the East Suffolk District.

 

Councillor Hedgley asked the Senior Licensing Officer how many letters of objection and how many letters of support were received. The Senior Licensing Officer replied there were 377 in total, 87 replied no they did not want them to be licensed, but if they did there were conditions that should be applied. This left 290 of which the majority objected and very few said yes.

 

The Lawyer added that the operator and Royal Yachting Association had put forward detailed reasons as to why the licence should be allowed and urged the Committee to consider these when making their decision.

 

Councillor Plummer referred to the statement from the Broads Authority website which confirmed that on the Broads there was a complete blanket ban on personal watercraft, private or public hire.  It stated a number of activities that were not appropriate for the untamed area, one of which was personal watercraft. Councillor Plummer noted the environmental similarities to the Deben.

 

The Licensing Manager told the Committee that they had collated all of the objections and comments and it was for the Committee to read and digest them and reach a decision.

 

Councillor Robinson referred to a business that wanted to set up Jet Ski hire from Lowestoft Beach and asked if that would come within the scope of the policy.  The Licensing Manager confirmed it would and they would not be able to operate.  How far out to sea the policy covered would need to be clarified. The Senior Licensing Officer confirmed they knew nothing of that business, and had not been approached about licensing it.

 

There being no further questions, the Committee moved to debate.

 

Councillor Robinson was very aware of the attraction to using this type of craft and respected people’s rights to enjoyment of personal watercraft. He believed there was an area designated for water skiing at high speed, which would create the same amount of wash as a jet ski. He noted the speed limits on the Deben which any other personal watercraft would have to adhere to as well.  He felt it related to personal freedom and people trying to run a business and make a living and was loathed to implement a blanket ban for the whole district.  He added there were lots of businesses and resorts across the district that would benefit from this and did not want to close the door on personal watercraft.

 

Councillor Candy said that this had been fully looked into with 377 responses to a consultation. The overwhelming feedback being the damage the personal watercraft do to the environment, with the damage to wildlife from the watercraft in shallow areas.  They were proudly stating they didn’t want damage in any of their rivers, not just the Deben, and felt they should take the lead from the Broads.

 

Councillor Robinson considered that a blanket ban would restrict the sea use as well.  Whilst he had no objection to restricting the use on rivers/waterways, inadvertently this could be closing off the sea use for 50 miles of coastline as well.

 

Councillor Hedgley stated that as a Committee they were willing to listen to all arguments before imposing any ban.

 

Councillor Thompson raised concerns for the wildlife at Orford Ness and Felixstowe.

 

Councillor Jepson said he personally had no qualms to saying no to Jet Ski Licences in rivers, but like Councillor Robinson he was slightly concerned with a blanket ban and how that might affect businesses operating at sea.

 

Councillor Reeves reminded the Committee that even if the recommendation was agreed there was still exceptional circumstances to be considered by the Licensing Sub-Committee as part of the policy.

 

The Licensing Manager confirmed that the regulations regarding the sea were not covered by East Suffolk Council. They were dealing with inland waters and rivers.

 

Councillor Hedgley asked for a point of clarification.  He asked if, following the decision, someone could still come to the Licensing Sub-Committee with an application.  The Licensing Manager confirmed it was not possible by law to have an absolute ban and never hear an application, what they could have was a policy that they would not grant licenses for personal watercraft except in exceptional circumstances.

 

The Senior Licensing Officer clarified the position from East Suffolk Council regarding Licensing Pleasure boats, which covered personal watercraft as follows:

 

The Council’s Licensing team issues pleasure boat licences for vessels carrying no more than 12 passengers on voyages that are at no time outside categorised waters (i.e. waters not regarded as 'sea'). In the Waveney district any vessels wishing to operate inland of Mutford Lock must apply to the Broads Authority.

 

The two relevant categories of waters are as follows:

 

  • Category A: Narrow rivers and canals where the depth of water is generally less than 1.5 metres.
  • Category B: Wider rivers and canals where the depth of water is generally 1.5 metres or more and where the significant wave height could not be expected to exceed 0.6 metres at any time.

 

Applications for a licence to operate in Category C waters (tidal rivers and estuaries and large, deep lakes and locks where the significant wave height could not be expected to exceed 1.2 metres at any time), will be assessed on an individual basis, in consultation with MCA officers.

 

Anything outside Category A, B or C (ie out to sea) would be covered by the MCA. 

 

Councillor Smith-Lyte told the Committee that she grew up on the Deben, and over the years sailing had noticed more river craft leading to more environmental issues and issues with safety of swimmers. As Melton Ward Councillor, she had received many messages, all not in favour, and it felt like the people had spoken.  When it was so overwhelmingly against she was minded to honour that.

 

Councillor Folley stated that there had previously been Council restrictions on waterskiing on the River Deben, as far as she was aware there had been no fines issued and questioned who was enforcing the licences out on the river.

 

The Senior Licensing Officer confirmed it was not the Licensing Team’s responsibility as it related to water skiing and speed restrictions.

 

The Licensing Manager commented on the requirement for a business to be lawful and have insurance to operate, for that they would need a licence or they would be operating unlawfully.  He added it would be difficult for licensing to enforce it.

 

Councillor Folley added when the Water Skiing restrictions were put in place, only 2% were companies renting out, the other 98% were personal users.  Referring to the current Personal Watercraft situation, she asked how this would improve the rivers if only one company currently existed, the majority were personal users who would be unaffected.

 

The Licensing Manager stated that was correct it would only affect businesses that hire out. If the Council wished to take action against those using personal watercraft, that is something they would have to consider using other means to do so.

 

Councillor Robinson noted that waters off the beach would be covered by the MCA and asked if a business wanted to hire craft off one the beaches, would the policy stop them from doing that. The Licensing Manager confirmed it would not if it was in the waters not covered by A, B and C.  He added they would need consent as Landowners if it was from a beach that was owned by East Suffolk Council.

 

Councillor Candy noted it was only one business currently but by approving it and encouraging it, you’re setting a precedent for other jet ski users to use the same launching facilities.  It was important not to become the mecca for Jet Skis to come to the area. It was not shutting the door but only allowing it if there was a special reason for doing so.

 

Councillor Hedgley asked the committee to be minded to what was actually happening currently and asked the committee to read the listed conditions that the Jet Ski Company had already implemented and were operating by.

 

Councillor Jepson noted the importance of the language used and that they were not saying lets attract Jet Skis. He added scanning through the objections, you may think this was purely linked to the River Deben. He didn’t think there should be Jet Skis in the rivers and estuaries, and they did not want to ban fun for all. He added that if someone wanted to operate a business like that, then it should be considered properly.

 

Councillor Plummer referred to the SSSI and RAMSPAR status of many of the Rivers and waterways and suggested they could say that those areas do not have personal watercraft in the.  It is the peace and quiet of the river that attracts people.

 

Councillor Robinson reiterated the concern that the policy did not just cover the River Deben, it covered the whole East Suffolk Area.  He was reluctant to support a total ban, as that only impacted those hiring personal watercraft, and they were less likely to create a nuisance than private owners.

 

Councillor Plummer expressed concern that you could have people who had never been on a personal watercraft before with very little training and that could cause other problems.

 

Councillor Smith-Lyte felt Councillor Robinson had made valid points, but did not see it necessary to add to the burden on personal watercraft with another business.

 

The debate continued with the Committee discussing the issues and concerns around the licensing of a personal watercraft hire company and yet individuals would still be able to use their own personal watercraft.

 

The Licensing Manager confirmed that they could only deal with the licensable activity which was the hire company and Councillor Plummer felt that implementing a licensing regime sent a message.

 

There was discussion around the consultation and whether people were clear on what they were consulted on.  The Chair clarified it was the decision of the committee to go out to consultation in October and this is the result.

 

The Licensing Manager clarified that whatever was decided any licence application would still have to go to the Sub-Committee, it would be necessary to decide on the circumstances for when a hearing would be required.

 

Councillor Folley noted that personal watercraft had been used for decades and only a small amount of people were to be affected, those that are renting, which could be insignificant compared to the number damaging the waterways on privately owned watercraft.

 

Councillor Candy responded that the environment needs care and the rivers need to be looked after.  Looking at the replies, there is concern that Jet-Skis do damage to the very fragile environment. She recognised that whilst private users could not be stopped, this would send the message that they were not keen. Whilst companies could apply to be licenced if they felt they had a case, this would be protecting the rivers, estuaries and eco system.

 

Councillor Fisher stated that this would encourage responsible licensing via criteria and a sub-committee hearing.

 

In response to Councillor Hedgley, the Licensing Manger confirmed licences could be revoked if criteria weren’t adhered to.

 

There was a debate regarding the cost of enforcing any conditions and considering the number of companies likely to apply versus the damage caused by individual users, whether that would be cost-effective.

 

The Licensing Manager confirmed that the licensing cost would be self-funding and would reflect the costs for monitoring/enforcement etc.  

 

Referring to the concern that the consultation only focused on the Deben, the Senior Licensing Officer read the consultation text which clearly referenced the East Suffolk District.

 

The Chair thanked those who did respond to the consultation for and against and noted the love for the Deben that had come across throughout the consultation responses.

 

Councillor Candy read the recommendation, Councillor Thompson seconded it.  It was

 

RESOLVED

 

1.That the Committee resolves not to license commercial operators of Personal Watercraft. 
2. If resolution 1 is agreed, the Licensing Manager in consultation with the Chair of Licensing Committee be authorised to amend the existing Boat Licensing Scheme to implement resolution 1 above. 

Report of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Community Health
5

The Committee received report ES/2239 of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Community Health which related to the approval of the table of fees and charges for the year 2025/26 to be implemented on 1st April 2025.

 

In introducing the report, Councillor Candy told the Committee that the Council’s Licensing Committee is responsible for licensing the following:

 

1. Licensing Act 2003 Licenses

2. Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle/Operators/Drivers

3. Pleasure boats

4. Gambling Act 2005 Premises

5. Sex Establishments

6. Street Trading.

 

The proposed fees were as shared in Appendix A of the report.

 

The Licensing Manager pointed out an error in the report and clarified that the Street Trading Fees were to be changed to £350 for consent and the daily rate would be abolished.

 

The Chair invited questions from the Committee.

 

Councillor Jepson questioned that within the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Vehicles costings, some areas were operating with a deficit. The Licensing Manager confirmed that there was a loss incurred with some of the discounted fees but the service as a whole was not making a loss. The costings were as such to encourage uptake of hybrid/electrical/disability vehicles.

 

There being no further questions, the Chair moved the Committee to debate.

 

Councillor Jepson referred to previous discussion regarding difficulties in recruiting taxi drivers and getting taxis. Whilst he encouraged the move to a hybrid car, this may not be affordable for many operators, and they would be penalised.  He asked if this was fair on the drivers.  Councillor Folley agreed.

 

The Senior Licensing Officer clarified that there were more drivers now than there had been in the past 4 to 5 years, with 80 applications for new drivers currently progressing.  She added there were no Uber operators in East Suffolk currently , and they would have to go through the same licensing application criteria.

 

Councillor Fisher noted the differentiated changes, with a lot more drivers, the extra charge is smaller compared to the benefit given to the other drivers.  The danger is if all fees were the same, there could be a loss of disability vehicles.

 

Councillor Jepson asked if there was consultation about the changes with the sector.  The Senior Licensing Officer confirmed that once the committee makes a decision, the fees will be advertised with a 28 day period for representations.

 

Note - Following the meeting it was confirmed by the Senior Licensing Officer that the fees for Vehicles and Operators are published for a 28 day period for representations.

 

Councillor Plummer noted that the percentage differential between the different categories was very similar to last year.

 

Councillor Folley asked if there was a breakdown of the number of licenced vehicles and adapted vehicles. 

 

The Licensing Manager gave the breakdown of vehicle types and how the costs were arrived at:

 

Private Hire - 467 vehicles in total, 388 were normal, 57 electric/hybrid, 28 wheelchair accessible

 

Hackney Carriage – 61 vehicles in total, 46 normal, 10 electric/hybrid, 4 wheelchair accessible.

 

In response to Councillor Jepson, the Licensing Manager confirmed if the paper was approved and within the 28 days there were representations that disagreed with the figures, it would be back to the Committee for determination.

 

Councillor Reeves noted for 2025/26 it was a only a small increase and the Licensing Manager confirmed it would be a member decision whether or not to approve.

 

Councillor Folley asked if there was the possibility of a discount for those working at night-time. The Licensing Manager replied it would be very difficult to monitor and enforce it.

 

The Licensing Officer clarified the cost breakdown for Councillor Jepson.

 

On the proposition of Councillor Robinson, seconded by Councillor Smith-Lyte, it was

 

RESOLVED

 

That the Licensing Committee:

 

Approves the proposed table of fees and charges for the year 2025/26, at Appendix A, to be implemented on the 1st April 2025

Report of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Community Health
6

The Committee received report ES/2240 of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Community Health which related to Street Trading in East Suffolk.

 

In introducing the report, Councillor Candy said that the Licensing Committee had resolved to adopt a district-wide street trading Policy.  The Policy was in accordance with Paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 to the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1982, the 1982 act to control street trading. The licensing Committee had already approved three consultations, the results of which had been reported back to the Committee on October 2023 and January 2024 and October 2024. Views were sought on proposals to change the policy and on which streets should become prohibited or consent streets in towns and parishes.  If a street was prohibited, then no street trading could take place at all.  A consent street meant that a community event involving street trading could take place but no other street trading.  A statement to this effect should be included in the policy to make it clear that consent street would permit community events.  Only the proposed list of streets was approved in October 2024 and a further consultation with the public was ordered.  The result of the consultation was only Golf Road in Felixstowe being proposed as a prohibited street, the proposed consent and prohibited streets were included in the report. However, the final decision as to which streets would be consent or prohibited streets was a matter for the committee. There would be a consent fee of £350 for each consent which would be for one street for one year.

 

The Chair invited questions to the Committee.

 

Councillor Hedley questioned the volume of streets that Southwold had prohibited.  Councillor Candy confirmed that had a lot to do with the desired flow of traffic around Southwold and the Town Council had been consulted.

 

The Senior Licensing Officer commented that in the current and existing policy for street trading, Southwold features quite heavily and they were keen to keep those streets and add a few more.

 

Councillor Plummer asked about the streets that were not mentioned and the Senior Licensing Officer said they were undesignated streets and there would be no regulation to licence or consent to trade.  The trader would still need to have the landowners permission and appropriate insurances and would be subject to regulation such as trading standards, food safety etc.

 

The Chair sought clarification on Golf Road in Felixstowe being the only prohibited street and whether there were some in Southwold as well. The Senior Licensing Officer clarified that Golf Road was the only additional street suggested as part of the consultation.

 

Councillor Folley asked who would enforce it.   The Senior Licensing Officer confirmed it would be the Enforcement Officer from the licensing Team.  Following whatever was decided at the Committee there would be another public notice with 28 days for any representations to the proposed resolution and then it would return to the April Licensing Committee for the final decision.

 

The Licensing Manager confirmed that it had been through a prior consultation with Town/Parishes prior to the public consultation and it was at the public consultation that Golf Road was added.  It would be up to the Committee to determine the final list by accepting or not accepting the decision.

 

The Chair invited the Committee to debate.

 

Councillor Jepson was surprised there were not more objections regarding Felixstowe.  Referring to Golf Road, he said although there were not many houses, the impact was significant with it affecting 100% of the people who were on that stretch of road. He would like to propose that Golf Road was not included as a consent street. The Chair suggested that would just lead to the operator moving to the next road.  Councillor Jepson asked that the Golf Road exclusion remained.

 

Councillor Candy said she was surprised there were so few people who had an opinion on this, and the concern would be that the van would move round the corner and affect a lot more houses.

 

Councillor Folley noted that they were talking about one chip van getting complaints, but there were others that stopped including some on private land.  The Senior Licensing Officer said they could be affected by street trading, it depends where they were on the private land.  Currently if they were within 20 metres of a street they would be affected by street trading.

 

The Licensing Manager clarified that the Committee were considering whether to accept Golf Road as a prohibited street or not.

 

Having spoken to the residents, Councillor Jepson recommended that Golf Road remained as a prohibited street.

 

Councillor Hedgley was happy to second, and expressed concern that they may just move to a new location.

 

Councillor Folley noted that when the road was out of use before, the fish and chip parked in an East Suffolk Council Car Park.  The Licensing Manager confirmed that operating business is not permitted from a Council Car Park and Councillor Plummer noted any member of the public could report that.

 

In response to Councillor Plummer it was confirmed that there were no restrictions on time, the report was considering if areas should be prohibited or consent streets.

 

The Licensing Manager added that community events could still go ahead.

 

Councillor Jepson asked for a point of order to return to the vote.  He added that the vehicles being used were not green vehicles, they are diesel run generators, creating noise and pollution which led to the public’s objections.

 

Councillor Jepson recommended that Golf Road was prohibited, seconded by Councillor Hedgley.

 

3 councillors voted for

1 councillor voted against

5 councillors abstained

 

Therefore by a simple majority as outlined in the East Suffolk Council’s Constitution (paragraph 3.13) it was

 

RESOLVED

 

That the Committee

 

1. Considers any consultation responses and approves the final list of Prohibited streets (where no street trading can take place whatsoever) and Consent Streets, as detailed in paragraph 3.2 of this report. All other streets will be undesignated.

 

Following a query from one member regarding the number of abstentions being greater than the number of votes, there was a short adjournment whilst the Democratic Services Officer and Licensing Manager checked the Constitution.

 

The meeting reconvened and it was clarified that according to East Suffolk Constitution 33.13.2 – Any matter will be decided by a simple majority.

 

The second vote did not take place.

 

It was therefore agreed that the amended Street Trading Report would be considered at the April 2025 meeting of the Licensing Committee.

Report of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Community Health
7

The Committee received report ES/2241 of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Community Health, which provided an overview of the issued Licences and work of the Licensing Sub-Committee during the period October to December 2024. The report was introduced by Councillor Candy and was taken as read.

 

In response to Councillor Hedgley, the Senior Licensing Officer explained the various reasons for licences being surrendered.

 

Councillor Hedgley thanked the Licensing team for all of the work that they carried out.  There being no further questions to Councillor Candy, it was by general assent

 

 RESOLVED

 

That the Committee notes the overview of some of the work of the Licensing Team and the Licensing Sub-Committees during the final quarter of 2024.

Exempt/Confidential
8 There are no Exempt or Confidential items for this Agenda.

 

Declarations of Interests

Member NameItem Ref.DetailsNature of DeclarationAction
No declarations of interest have been entered for this meeting.

Visitors

Officers present: Pip Alder (Democratic Services Officer), Teresa Bailey (Senior Licensing Officer), Katy Cassidy (Democratic Services Officer), Martin Clarke (Licensing Manager and Housing Lead Lawyer)